On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 5:06 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Bernd Edlinger >> <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:49:39, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Sriraman Tallam <tmsri...@google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have attached a patch to fix this bug : >>>>> >>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58944 >>>>> >>>>> A similar problem was also reported here: >>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg01050.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Recently, ix86_valid_target_attribute_tree in config/i386/i386.c was >>>>> refactored to not depend on global_options structure and to be able to >>>>> use any gcc_options structure. One clean way to fix this is by having >>>>> target_option_default_node save all the default target options which >>>>> can be restored to any gcc_options structure. The root cause of the >>>>> above bugs was that ix86_arch_string and ix86_tune_string was not >>>>> saved in target_option_deault_node in PR58944 and >>>>> ix86_preferred_stack_boundary_arg was not saved in the latter case. >>>>> >>>>> This patch saves all the target options used in i386.opt which are >>>>> either obtained from the command-line or set to some default. Is this >>>>> patch alright? >>>> >>>> Things looks rather complicated, but I see no other solution that save >>>> and restore the way you propose. >>>> >>>> Please wait 24h if somebody has a different idea, otherwise please go >>>> ahead and commit the patch to mainline. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe you should also look at the handling or preferred_stack_boundary_arg >>> versus incoming_stack_boundary_arg in ix86_option_override_internal: >>> >>> Remember ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg is defined to >>> global_options.x_ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg. >>> >>> like this? >>> >>> if (opts_set->x_ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg) >>> { >>> - if (ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg >>> + if (opts->x_ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg >>> < (TARGET_64BIT_P (opts->x_ix86_isa_flags) ? 4 : 2) >>> - || ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg> 12) >>> + || opts->x_ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg> 12) >>> error ("-mincoming-stack-boundary=%d is not between %d and 12", >>> - ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg, >>> + opts->x_ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg, >>> TARGET_64BIT_P (opts->x_ix86_isa_flags) ? 4 : 2); >>> else >>> { >>> ix86_user_incoming_stack_boundary >>> - = (1 << ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg) * BITS_PER_UNIT; >>> + = (1 << opts->x_ix86_incoming_stack_boundary_arg) * >>> BITS_PER_UNIT; >>> ix86_incoming_stack_boundary >>> = ix86_user_incoming_stack_boundary; >>> } >>> >> >> Thanks for catching this. I will make this change in the same patch. >> > > Your change caused: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59492
Thanks for fixing this. This is making me wonder if I am missing some other important flags. Is there a way to detect this? I originally looked at everything in i386.opt to form my list. Thanks Sri > > > -- > H.J.
